CB The Aggressiveness of Girls Compared to Boys Essay I have attached a sample of how your writing should be and two readings (add one reading of your choi

CB The Aggressiveness of Girls Compared to Boys Essay I have attached a sample of how your writing should be and two readings (add one reading of your choice).These will each be ~3 pages, single-spaced, 12-pt font. The general format for these position papers should be:(a) ~2 pages reviewing the core material of the readings (two assigned readings + one reading of your choice related to the topic).(b) ~1 page introducing some novel study that includes your empirical question(s), hypotheses, ways you might test the hypotheses, & possible implications that relate back to the bigger topic you reviewed. Sample Student
Sample Position Paper
Seminar in Social Psychology
Bones & Poppy (2018) examine the way that people interpret the musical preferences of
others with regards to those individuals’ personalities. They found, through the first experiment
detailed in the paper, that undergraduates tasked with interacting with a stranger over the internet
for six weeks discussed music more than any other single topic. In fact, throughout the six weeks
the study took place, there was only one week in which music was not the most discussed topic
between the sets of participants. This information supported the researchers’ predictions that
music and musical preference held a distinctive level of prominence with regards to interpersonal
relations. Their prediction, which they tested in experiment two, was that people will also use the
knowledge of a person’s musical preferences as a cue to identify aspects of their personality.
This phenomenon is called cue utilization.
Furthermore, researchers predicted that musical preferences would in fact correlate with
the aspects of identity that they’re associated with. In other words, cue validity would be such
that participants utilizing these cues would have a high degree of observer accuracy. To test these
predictions, researchers asked participants to create lists of their 10 favorite songs, which were
coded for musical elements (tempo, etc.) and genre. This set of participants, the targets, also
completed the Big Five Inventory and Rokeach’s Values Survey, both metrics designed to
illuminate and quantify aspects of an individual’s personality. A second set of participants, the
observers, rated the targets’ personalities in similar terms used by the BFI and the RVS, based on
their music preferences.
Observers’ ratings correlated with the results of the metrics taken by the targets, such that
they more often rated targets correctly than did participants in similarly designed zeroacquaintance studies that used stimuli other than musical preference. Furthermore, when
analyzing targets’ BFI and RVS results irrespective of the judgments of observers, they found
that several musical preferences accurately predicted aspects of personality. For example,
extraverted targets had top 10 lists with more energy, enthusiasm, singing, country and hip-hop
songs.
Sage and Handy (2018) examine the accuracy by which participants could detect
psychopathy from thin slices of behavior, defined as brief excerpts (5s, 10s, and 20s) from
interviews. Specifically, they showed participants short videos of inmates being interviewed, and
asked participants to rate these individuals on a Likert scale for measures of two-sentence
descriptions of psychopathy, other personality disorders, and certain other variables related to
psychopathy.
The researchers predicted that participants’ ratings would be accurate and reliable, even
though the amount of exposure they’d have to the individuals they’re rating would be so limited.
What they found was that participants’ judgments were extremely reliable for all measures
except borderline personality disorder ratings. Reliability did not vary greatly between time
conditions. In addition, researchers found that participants’ ratings correlated significantly with
certain criteria of psychopathy, as well as with qualities that predict psychopathy such as other
personality disorders, ostensible (but not actual) intelligence, and attractiveness.
Van et al. (2018) focus on an interesting and unobvious phenomenon: the effects of taste
on moral judgments. They then examined the differences of these effects on individuals who,
politically, leaned conservative or liberal. To do this, researchers first gave participants either a
sweet, bitter, or neutral (water) beverage to drink. After drinking the beverage, participants
completed a moral judgment task using Wheatley and Haidt’s moral vignettes, which ask
participants about the morality of several taboo acts. Importantly, they were told the study would
be examining the effects of motor interference on cognitive processing to eliminate any effects of
top-down processing.
The researchers found a significant effect of beverage type, such that bitter drinks caused
harsher judgments than in the control and sweet conditions. Furthermore, there was a very slight
but statistically significant difference in ratings between the control and sweet conditions, such
that participants in the sweet condition made slightly less harsh judgments than participants in
the control. Furthermore, they demonstrated that conservatives were more likely to demonstrate
this effect than were liberals, due to what the researchers hypothesized is a greater susceptibility
to disgust.
Position & Novel Research
I found Van et al.’s article to be a fascinating exploration of the ways that people can be
very easily primed with sensory information. I would not have thought that something as
ostensibly bottom-up as taste would affect a process that is so seemingly top-down and conscious
as moral judgment. The implications of this are fascinating, especially within the realm of
politics, where individuals are expected to make decisions rationally. This article illuminates the
fact that, by default, people are not necessarily prone to making decisions in that way.
Tangentially, doctors receive gifts, usually in the form of complimentary meals, from
pharmaceutical companies who then present information to them about their drugs. It seems,
given the findings of discussed in the article, that this type of priming could certainly influence
these individuals’ decisions, at least in the short-term. It seems to me that the logical next step
for this line of research would be to extend it to simulations of real-life scenarios. Because I
highly doubt any prominent politician would agree to participate in a study about their decisionmaking processes, the study I’m proposing will involve doctors’ decisions to prescribe drugs
after being primed with different tastes.
The study would involve primary care physicians, who, similar to Van et al., would be
told they were participating in a study based on sensory interference. This version of the study
would use food as stimuli instead of beverages since meals are commonly the gifts given to
doctors by pharmaceutical companies. There would only be two conditions, one experimental
and one control. In the experimental condition, the physicians would be given a menu of food
items that the lab would have on hand and would choose one. Clearly, this differs from Van et
al., who assigned their participants to conditions at random. This distinction was made to
simulate reality, where the physician would be choosing their meal at one of these actual
presentations.
They would watch a presentation for a fictional drug while eating the food that was given
to them. Next, physicians would engage in a 5-minute driving simulation task as both a filler,
and to simulate ecological validity where physicians would leave the place that they’re having a
meal and go back to wherever it is that they practice. Afterwards, they would be given vignettes
detailing a fictional diagnostic situation with a patient, where the patient would explain their
issues in detail. The physicians would be told to prescribe these patients a drug or combination of
drugs, with the fictional drug as a possibility. The participants would be told that the reason
they’re doing this is to test their retention of information from the presentation, that they should
make their judgments based on the best possible prescription for those individuals to the best of
their knowledge, and that there would be vignettes where the fictional drug would be the most
appropriate prescription and vignettes where the fictional drug would not be the most appropriate
prescription.
Participants in the control condition would go through the exact same process, but would
not be given a food item and would be told the study was simply going to test for information
retention, with no mention of sensory interference. Then, we would test the results to determine
if participants in the experimental condition more often prescribed the fictional drug than did
participants in the control condition. Presumably, this would be a simulation of a short-term
effect, where physicians would receive a presentation while eating lunch, return to their practice,
and either be more prone to prescribe the drug at that time or not be more prone to prescribe the
drug at that time. To test for long term effects, these physicians could be given an additional set
of vignettes in a week’s time with a quick refresher description of the fictional drug.
I would hypothesize that we would find a short-term effect, where participants in the
experimental condition would be more likely to prescribe the drug to the characters in the
vignettes than would participants in the control condition. It seems to me that good food is such a
strong stimulus, certainly stronger than the beverages used by Sammy et al., so they should
create some type of effect on judgments. If this was the case, naturally, it would present an issue,
which is that it would mean that physicians are susceptible to manipulation by the gifts of
pharmaceutical companies.
However, I believe the effect would disappear in the one-week follow up, due to the
general lack of potency that an experimental situation with limited ecological validity would
cause. A future study may recruit physicians, have them prescribe drugs to characters, and
compare their choices with the actual gifts that they’ve received from pharmaceutical companies,
to determine if they did prescribe drugs more often when they’ve received gifts from those
drugs’ manufacturers. This would not be difficult, since the information of those gifts is publicly
accessible from the OpenPaymentsData tool which is part of the US government’s
Medicare/Medicaid services. This is an important line of inquiry with many possible avenues of
exploration available.
References
Bones, K. A., & Poppy, C. J. (2018). The role of music preferences in interpersonal perception.
Psychological Science, 17(3), 236-242.
Sage, P. J., & Handy, S. D. (2018). Detecting psychopathy from thin slices of behavior.
Psychological Assessment, 21(1), 68-78.
Van, K. J., Clammy, N.A., Boss, J. P., & Tammy, J. J. (2018). Gustatory disgust influences
moral judgment. Psychological Science, 22, 295-299.
Personality and Social Psychology Review
2005, Vol. 9, No. 3, 212–230
Copyright © 2005 by
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
An Integrated Review of Indirect, Relational, and Social Aggression
John Archer & Sarah M. Coyne
Department of Psychology
University of Central Lancashire, Great Britain
Over the last decade, researchers have found that girls may be just as aggressive as
boys when manipulative forms of aggression, such as gossiping and spreading rumors, are included. These forms of aggression are known by 3 different names: indirect aggression, relational aggression, and social aggression. This review examines
their commonalities and differences, and concludes that they are essentially the same
form of aggression. We show that analogous forms are not found in other species. We
offer a functional account: indirect aggression is an alternative strategy to direct aggression, enacted when the costs of direct aggression are high, and whose aim is to
socially exclude, or harm the social status of, a victim. In this light, we consider sex
differences and developmental trends and the impact of this aggression on victims.
We conclude that indirect, relational, and social aggression are much more similar
than they are different, and we suggest ways in which future research can be facilitated by integrating the three areas under an adaptive framework.
Definitions of human aggression generally involve
the intention to inflict harm on others. Direct acts of
verbal and physical aggression in situations of interpersonal conflict readily fit such a definition, and they
are clearly homologous with those found in other animals. In humans, there exists another form of aggression, one that can be as harmful and as damaging to its
victims as some types of physical aggression (e.g.,
Eslea, 2005; Paquette & Underwood, 1999). It has
been given three different names, indirect (Lagerspetz,
Björkqvist, & Peltonen, 1988), relational (Crick &
Grotpeter, 1995), and social (Cairns, Cairns, Neckerman, Ferguson, & Gariépy, 1989) aggression. These
forms of aggression are intended to cause harm by using others, spreading rumors, gossiping, and excluding
others from the group or ignoring them. Unlike direct
aggression, indirect, relational, and social aggression
is not so easily separated from the same sort of actions
carried out without the motive to harm another. Therefore, a person may gossip without intending to harm
another, but nevertheless do so. Someone may exclude
another from access to resources, or from a valued activity, and not intend to harm or distress them, but nevertheless do so. It is therefore particularly important to
consider motives in defining these forms of aggression
and in separating them from wider concepts, such as
gossip and social exclusion.
The terms indirect aggression, relational aggression, and social aggression are superficially similar,
particularly with respect to the types of manipulative
acts they involve. Many of the same acts are found in
all three categories, and they all show sex differences
in the female direction, in contrast to direct forms of
aggression (Archer, 2004). Nevertheless, they do differ in their emphasis and how researchers using the
three terms have conceptualized them (Archer, 2001).
Indirect aggression is defined in relation to the covert,
“behind-the-back,” form the aggression takes: this is
viewed as a low-cost way of harming others (Björkqvist,
1994). Relational aggression is defined in terms of its
endpoint, which is to manipulate or disrupt relationships and friendships, and its form can be overt or covert, but is usually covert. Similarly, social aggression
is defined in terms of intended endpoints, which are to
manipulate group acceptance and damage others’ social standing (Galen & Underwood, 1997). It also includes both overt and covert forms and some additional acts not included in the other two categories,
such as giving a “dirty look.”
Researchers using the three labels disagree over
which term is the most useful for describing these manipulative forms of behavior. The major conflict is between indirect and relational aggression researchers,
with indirect aggression researchers arguing that the
latter had renamed a concept that had been studied for
nearly a decade before (e.g., Björkqvist, 2001). Conversely, relational aggression researchers maintain that
the two terms are distinct and involve different forms
We thank Peter Henzi (University of Central Lancashire) for his
helpful comments on this article, and for discussing the possibility of
indirect aggression in primates. We also thank Mike Eslea and Sarah
Forrest for access to their unpublished work.
Requests for reprints should be sent to John Archer, Department
of Psychology, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2
HE, United Kingdom. E-mail: jarcher@uclan.ac.uk
212
INDIRECT, RELATIONAL, AND SOCIAL AGGRESSION
of behavior (e.g., Crick et al., 1999). The term social
aggression is used less often, but is regarded as encompassing the other two (Underwood, 2003).
Throughout the review, our discussion will be informed by a strategic or functional approach to aggression (Archer, 2001). All forms of aggression can be
viewed as social strategies, in that they have evolved
and are currently used to pursue certain competitive
goals. Different forms of aggression either involve different competitive goals or they represent different
means to the same ends. We argue that all three forms
of aggression can be distinguished from direct aggression because they have different adaptive goals and
because these are largely achieved in different ways.
Instead of directly inflicting harm, their aim is to
manipulate the reputation of another or to exclude
them from the group. Instead of doing this by direct action, more manipulative, usually covert, methods are
used.
Before elaborating this functional approach, we
outline first the ways in which the three forms of aggression have been measured and then consider their
definitions and the types of behavior each one entails.
We conclude from this discussion that the three terms
essentially cover the same form of aggression with differences of emphasis in the defining characteristics.
This argument provides a rationale for considering a
single category, rather than three, throughout the rest
of the review. We use the label indirect aggression because this was the original one to be used in what is essentially the same area of research and because it fits a
strategic approach whose emphasis is on the form the
aggression takes. We provide further rationale for using this term when we argue that the few cases where
relational or social aggression does involve overt
methods occur in dyads rather than groups and it has
different goals from the usual forms of indirect relational or social aggression.
The main part of the review begins with an examination of the claim that there are analogous forms of indirect aggression in other species, but we conclude that
it is restricted to humans. We then propose an adaptive
framework, which views indirect aggression as being
defined by both its goals and its strategies. The goals
are typically different from those of direct aggression
in that they involve social exclusion and manipulation.
The means through which these ends are achieved are
also different and can be viewed as an alternative aggressive strategy used for individual or situational reasons when the costs of direct confrontation are high.
We then examine developmental trends, sex differences, and the consequences of indirect aggression
from this perspective. We show that the form the aggression takes varies at different ages, with direct
forms occurring in dyadic relationships at young ages
and typical indirect forms being more prominent during middle childhood and adolescence. Sex differ-
ences, when found, are in the female direction, whichever label is attached to the aggression. Likewise, the
consequences of being both a victim and a perpetrator
of these forms of aggression show common features
across the three labels. The negative consequences of
indirect aggression are clear from the existing research
evidence, and could in future be linked with experimental studies showing the wide-ranging harmful consequences of brief periods of social exclusion. Here we
again note the difference between the ends (social exclusion) and means (indirect and direct forms of social
manipulation). We end with some suggestions for future research, primarily to seek to integrate the research using the different labels, but also to link indirect aggression to other areas of research.
The Measurement
of Indirect Aggression
A variety of methods have been used to measure indirect aggression (Table 1). Observations have been
used from preschool to school ages, up to 10 to 11
years, and they typically involve recording the frequency of various acts of aggression. The original
studies of indirect aggression by Feshbach (1969)
measured social exclusion and rejection when a newcomer was introduced to an established playgroup.
More recent studies have used technological aids, such
as a wireless microphone and hidden camera, to observe children in school playgrounds and at other break
times (Tapper & Boulton, 2002).
The first systematic research on a range of categories of indirect aggression, carried out in Finland, used
peer estimations or ratings (Lagerspetz et al., 1988).
The Direct a…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment